DATE OF FILING : 10-09-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 08-10-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 21-01-2013.
Mrs. Sima Bose
& Mr. Soumyadip Bose,
4/19, G.T. Road ( South ),
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711101.----------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
Versus -
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
2nd, 3rd & 4th floor, Tower 'C',
Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43,
Gurgaon – 122003,
Haryana, India.
2. Harmony House Pvt. Ltd.
125, G.T. Road ( S ), Shibpur,
Howrah – 711102.
3. Time-O-Service,
37 & 38, Mohinath Porel Lane, Salkia,
Howrah - 711106.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
It is the specific grievance of the complainants, Smt. Sima Bose & Sri
Soumyadip Bose that within three months of the purchase of a refrigerator in question from o.p. no. 2, manufactured by o.p. no. 1, started sweating problem inside the refrigerator. And it used to be filled with water. On advice of a visiting technician of o.p. no. 2, complainants used 'Temperature Control Dial' but to no effect. The food stored inside was getting solidified into ice. Also there were some other problems detected by the complainants such as regular water formation lining the outside of the front door of the refrigerator as well as substantial 'crack' on the floor of the refrigerator in front of the vegetable box. The complainants made calls to the Toll Free complaint number of o.p. no. 1 and lodged their complaints, and they were initially promised of a replacement of the said refrigerator. Technicians of o.ps. visited for several times and lastly, chill tray of the refrigerator was replaced. But the complainants alleged that the chill tray has a foam coating pasted with adhesive in order to stop the water from trickling down. And in due course of time, as the warranty period would be over, the refrigerator would again start giving trouble and o.ps. also would not be bound to replace the same. Under the above circumstances, complainants by filing this petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund the present market value of the said refrigerator, to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment along with a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Notices were served upon o.ps. Only o.p. no. 1 appeared and filed written
version. Other o.ps. never appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte against o.p. nos. 2 & 3.
3. Upon pleadings of parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint / petition and its annexures and reply to the written version filed by complainant, and noted its contents. We have also considered the written version filed by o.p. no. 1. O.p. no. 1 vide para no. 3 of this written version had admitted that complainant purchased the said machine on 14-09-2011 vide annexure Tax Invoice Challan dated 14-09-2011 on payment of Rs. 8,800/- and the first complaint was made by the complainants on 16-04-2012. It means only after a lapse of seven months, complainants had to lodge a complaint for such purchase. Complainant purchased a refrigerator which has been manufactured by a worldwide reputed company. And it is a very useful household gadget, which the complainant no. 1, being a lady, required at every moment. After paying such an amount of Rs. 8,800/-, she should be compelled to suffer like that. Every day she is to call a person of o.ps. and request them to set it right. The principle of post-sale service does not allow this kind of ' post-sale service'. Once a machine has been purchased, everyone should get its service in a defect free manner at least for two years. But here in this case, the problem started within seven months of its purchase. Complainants made innumerable calls to their toll free number as it is evident from para 3 of reply petition filed by the complainants. On the 'Tax Invoice Challan', o.p. no. 2 has advertised itself as 'A Trusted Name in Electronics For Over 50 Years'. So, o.p. no. 2 should have been little more careful about their reputation which they achieved over last 50 years. Both the o.ps. are in customer oriented business and customer satisfaction should have been their ultimate goal. But they have neglected their duty in a very wreck less manner, that should not be allowed to be perpetrated. Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit with costs against o.ps.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 106 of 2012 ( HDF 106 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1 with costs and allowed exparte with costs against the rest.
That the O.Ps. are directed jointly and severally to replace the refrigerator in question with the same model, if not available, with a higher quality model with a fresh warranty within one month from this order.
That the o.ps. are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within one month from this order. If the o.ps. do not comply the above order in toto, Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged against them till actual compliance.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
